Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #607
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, July 11 2001           Volume 01 : Number 607

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:44:00 +0800
From: "erica" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

I share Steven's concern about this attempt to re-name generic TLDs and call
them 'global' TLDs.  All TLDs are global and there are certainly more than 4
global commercial TLDs (eg. .tv, .nu, .cc, .la, .com, .net, .biz, etc).( I
am not sure whether it is correct to call .org a 'commercial TLD)
Any change of nomenclature is very important and has a long term impact on
the way in which people think about the DNS.   I think it is pretty clear
that we need an agreed classification system which is heirarchial in nature.
This is something on which the NC could consider developing a policy
position.

Just to start the ball rolling, I would suggest that the top level
distinction should turn on the controlling authority.  For gTLDs, the
ultimate controlling/regulatory authority is ICANN.  For ccTLDs, the
ultimate controlling authority is the Administrator of the ccTLD (acting on
behalf of the LIC, etc).   ICANN provides services to the ccTLDs but does
not, and should not, control/regulatate their operation.

Within both the gTLDs and  the ccTLDs, further distinctions could be drawn.
1.Some could be classified as 'open' in the sense that anyone can register a
name.  Others could be classified as 'closed' in the sense that not every
entity is eligible to register a name in the TLD.
2.Some TLDs are structured in the sense that they have a limited number of
prescribed 2LDs and are open for registrations only at the 3LD level
Others are unstructured and open for registrations at the 2LD.
3. Some TLDs offer free name registration, others require payment.  Others
again are mixed - with some registrations offered free of charge and other
for a payment of a fee.
4.  Some TLDs offer registration terms for only one year - others offer
registration terms for up to 10 years.

In principle, there is no reason why these sorts of variations could not be
found in amongst both ccTLDs and gTLDs.  Therefore, these variations cannot
be used to distinguish between ccTLDs and gTLDs.

Is there any interest in the GA in pursuing the development on a policy for
the classification of TLDs by the DNSO?

erica

As I see it, the key distinction is not between commercial and
non-commercial TLDs,  open or closed TLDs, but between generic and country
code ccTLDs.
For this reason, I think it would be appropriate to propose that the NC
provide advice to the Board on key nomenclature and the heirarchy to be used
when distinguishing between different types of TLDs.differences between
ccTLDs and gTLDs.  Once that is clear, then it will be possible to
distinguish between different types of gTLDsw and ccTLDs.
Just to start the ball rolling, I suggest that the distinction be drawn
along the following lines:
Key characteristics:
gTLD= generic TLDs-
*entered in the ICANN/USG root
* operation of gTLDs is subject to ICANN policies (UDRP, transfers, etc)
ccTLDs
* entered in ICANN/USG root
* operation is subject to policies determined by the ccTLD Manager.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Heath" <[email-masked]>
To: "GA (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'M. Stuart Lynn'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 6:11 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] a quote from Lynn

> Also quoting from ICANN follow up to new.net.
>
> As a ccTLD operator I have major concerns with this statement:
>
> "Today, there are only three global commercial TLDs in the authoritative
> root, all operated by a single registry operator. The four6 new global
> commercial additions (operated by four different registry operators)
> endorsed by ICANN represent a greater-than-100% increase in the number of
> global TLDs, and a 400% increase in the number of separate registry
> operators.7 If experience shows that these additions can be made without
> adverse effects - and there is every reason to hope that will be the
case -
> then presumably additional TLDs can be established more quickly in the
> future should that prove desirable."
>
> The first line I feel is shocking in this clipping from
> http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/response-to-new.net-09jul01.htm
>
> It appears this is a formal attempt to reposition GENERIC TLDs as now
being
> GLOBAL TLDs. This appears to be an attempt to under mine ccTLD's by making
a
> ghetto for them and 'putting them in their place' by them being regional
and
> not global.
>
> Last time I checked any gTLD or ccTLD can resolve anywhere in the world so
> what right does ICANN claim their are only _3_ commercial TLD's?
>
> Steven Heath
> Councillor, InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD Manager)
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:53:32 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Danny Younger

No, William, your opinion is not one shared with me and many others.

Cooperation is something we should strive for.

The duplication of .biz and .info is a terrible mistake being made by 
people who do not understand what they are doing who are being influenced 
by people who know exactly what they are doing.

We participate in the process to invoke change and to help create a world 
in which we all would like to live.  I have exercised my right to vote ever 
since the very first day I was granted the privilege.

et cetera.

And good night.

:)

~k

At 06:31 PM 7/10/2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello DannyYounger,
>
>Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 5:49:18 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > If the topic of alternate roots is not "beyond the scope" of our ICANN
> > President, then it should not be "beyond the scope of the DNSO", even 
> if so
> > declared by the Names Council.   It would be appropriate for the GA to 
> again
> > petition the Council for a working group on this topic... I am not arguing
> > that a different policy needs to be adopted, only that we should 
> exercise our
> > right to consider this policy, and if required, submit recommendations to
> > improve upon that policy.
>
>
>I think that the Names Council was right.
>
>Just because ICANN is talking about Alt.roots does not make it within
>the scope of the DNSO.
>
>It would be inappropriate for ICANN or the DNSO to adopt any policy
>with regard to alt.roots except one of leaving them alone, which
>doesn't require a working group, it is the status quo.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
>Userfriendly.com Domains
>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:57:55 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Comments from Danny Younger

Hello Kristy,

Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 11:53:32 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> No, William, your opinion is not one shared with me and many others.

> Cooperation is something we should strive for.

Cooperation with what?

There is nothing substantive in the alt.root community to cooperate
with.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:23:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

John and all assembly members,

  When will the archives or your public ML ba avlaible to the public?

John Palmer wrote:

> Just a reminder that nominations are under way for TLDA board and committee
> seats.
>
> Members can nominate and can also run for the seats on the board and
> committees (see http://www.tlda.org).
>
> Nominations run through July 13, 2001 at 23:59:59 UTC.
>
> Elections will be July 27 12:00 UTC - July 29 12:00 UTC.
>
> To see if you qualify as a member of the TLDA or to apply for
> membership vist http://www.tlda.org
>
> John Palmer
> Secretary
> TLDA
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:27:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] European Root ...

Marc and all assembly members,

  Nothing new here really.  This has been in the works for some time now
in conjunction with Wide.

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> There seems to have been born recently a European Root from a marriage
> of German and French netizens.
>
> http://www.boroon.net/
>
> Now don't look upon this as a further splitting of the DNS. As far as
> I have been able to see, the one server up so far faithfully follows
> ORSC.
>
> For the record, I have nothing to do with it :-)
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:45:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Vint Cerf

Danny and all assembly members,

  Other policy's have been submitted to the ICANN BoD and staff.  They
have never been responded to, or completely ignored all together.  We sent
two in '99.  No response back yet.  So I have a problem believing Vent's
statement.  ORSC had sent a proposal as well, ad doa AURSC, Superoot,
Ultrante, and a number of others.  I have yet to see a official response back
from the ICANN BOD and staff.  However this is really not all that important,
as the STAKEHOLDERS should be determining what policies regarding
Root structures and TLD addition, not the ICANN BoD and staff...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Milton,
>
> I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative root
> is
> part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's responsibility in
> the creation of new TLDs.
>
> If the DNSO believes a different policy is needed, it is free to develop
> proposals
> for the ICANN board to consider.
>
> Vint Cerf
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00605.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:53:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Danny Younger

Kristy and all assembly members,

  We [INEGroup] are in agreement with you here Kristy.  Thank you for the
clarity.  >;)

Kristy McKee wrote:

> No, William, your opinion is not one shared with me and many others.
>
> Cooperation is something we should strive for.
>
> The duplication of .biz and .info is a terrible mistake being made by
> people who do not understand what they are doing who are being influenced
> by people who know exactly what they are doing.
>
> We participate in the process to invoke change and to help create a world
> in which we all would like to live.  I have exercised my right to vote ever
> since the very first day I was granted the privilege.
>
> et cetera.
>
> And good night.
>
> :)
>
> ~k
>
> At 06:31 PM 7/10/2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >Hello DannyYounger,
> >
> >Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 5:49:18 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > If the topic of alternate roots is not "beyond the scope" of our ICANN
> > > President, then it should not be "beyond the scope of the DNSO", even
> > if so
> > > declared by the Names Council.   It would be appropriate for the GA to
> > again
> > > petition the Council for a working group on this topic... I am not arguing
> > > that a different policy needs to be adopted, only that we should
> > exercise our
> > > right to consider this policy, and if required, submit recommendations to
> > > improve upon that policy.
> >
> >
> >I think that the Names Council was right.
> >
> >Just because ICANN is talking about Alt.roots does not make it within
> >the scope of the DNSO.
> >
> >It would be inappropriate for ICANN or the DNSO to adopt any policy
> >with regard to alt.roots except one of leaving them alone, which
> >doesn't require a working group, it is the status quo.
> >
> >--
> >Best regards,
> >William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> >Userfriendly.com Domains
> >The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:02:56 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 6:19 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] a quote from Lynn

> Hello L,
>
> Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 12:14:32 PM, L Gallegos wrote:
> > In actuality, Lynn's statement is good.  There should not be any
> > duplication, that's all.  It has nothing to do with whether you
> > choose one root over another.  When you want to go to nic.biz,
> > you should always get to the ARNI .biz registry, not Nuelevel.
> > When you want to go to computers.biz, you should always see the
> > same one.  That much should always be true.
>
> > What he is trying to say is that there should be only the USG root,
> > but he misses the point that there will always be more than one
> > root.  Universality is the uniqueness of the domain throughout all
> > roots.
>
> Under your position above, there is no reason for multiple roots, if
> they all contain the same data, there is no inherent benefit to
> multiple root systems.
>
> I have to say, this argument doesn't help your claims any, Leah.
>
>
The benefit is stability, William. The more root networks out there, the
less chance that there
will be a catastrophic failure (ever hear of "common mode" failuer - aka
Three Mile Island)?

Also, regional roots can offer local TLDs that are not available in other
areas of the world.

More root servers, scattered in more places means that less network
bandwidth is taken
up by DNS queries. User response time is faster since they are able to hit
local roots rather
than one that may be many hops away.

John

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:18:17 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Comments from Danny Younger

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:58 PM
> 
> Tuesday, July 10, 2001, 11:53:32 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
> 
> > No, William, your opinion is not one shared with me and many others.
> 
> > Cooperation is something we should strive for.
> 
> Cooperation with what?
> 
> There is nothing substantive in the alt.root community to cooperate
> with.

Funny ... how he calls a company with $20M cash (more than ICANN) "nothing
substantive".
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:38:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

Steven and all assembly members,

Steven Heath wrote:

> Also quoting from ICANN follow up to new.net.
>
> As a ccTLD operator I have major concerns with this statement:
>
> "Today, there are only three global commercial TLDs in the authoritative
> root, all operated by a single registry operator. The four6 new global
> commercial additions (operated by four different registry operators)
> endorsed by ICANN represent a greater-than-100% increase in the number of
> global TLDs, and a 400% increase in the number of separate registry
> operators.7 If experience shows that these additions can be made without
> adverse effects - and there is every reason to hope that will be the case -
> then presumably additional TLDs can be established more quickly in the
> future should that prove desirable."
>
> The first line I feel is shocking in this clipping from
> http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3-background/response-to-new.net-09jul01.htm
>
> It appears this is a formal attempt to reposition GENERIC TLDs as now being
> GLOBAL TLDs. This appears to be an attempt to under mine ccTLD's by making a
> ghetto for them and 'putting them in their place' by them being regional and
> not global.

  It would seem that because the ccTLD's have been having a problem
with the ICANN BoD and staff, like allot of other Registries, that they have
on their own accord, decided to shun them from a political stand point.
However I wouldn't worry about it much Steven.  What has the ICANN BoD
and staff done for any of the ccTLD's thus far???

>
>
> Last time I checked any gTLD or ccTLD can resolve anywhere in the world so
> what right does ICANN claim their are only _3_ commercial TLD's?

  None of course.  However this is just political pontificating from Mr. Lynn.
And not too clever of an attempt either....

>
>
> Steven Heath
> Councillor, InternetNZ (.nz ccTLD Manager)
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 04:47:58 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

The archives are available to all list members.  List membership is 
open to all.

Leah

On 11 Jul 2001, at 1:23, Jeff Williams wrote:

> John and all assembly members,
> 
>   When will the archives or your public ML ba avlaible to the public?
> 
> John Palmer wrote:
> 
> > Just a reminder that nominations are under way for TLDA board and
> > committee seats.
> >
> > Members can nominate and can also run for the seats on the board and
> > committees (see http://www.tlda.org).
> >
> > Nominations run through July 13, 2001 at 23:59:59 UTC.
> >
> > Elections will be July 27 12:00 UTC - July 29 12:00 UTC.
> >
> > To see if you qualify as a member of the TLDA or to apply for
> > membership vist http://www.tlda.org
> >
> > John Palmer
> > Secretary
> > TLDA
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:10:10 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Vint Cerf

On 02:11 11/07/01, [email-masked] said:
>Milton,
>I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative root
>is part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's
>responsibility in the creation of new TLDs.
>If the DNSO believes a different policy is needed, it is free to develop
>proposals for the ICANN board to consider.
>Vint Cerf
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00605.html

Dear Vint,
do you really believe you need the DNSO to know if triangles
have changed shape?

Until recently, the submits, i.e. the roots of hierarchical trees,
were tiny little sharp dots like the one you don't even see at
the righter end of a DN.

Obvsiouly if Joe Sims says we know otherwise for many years
may be there is room in there for a few "gobal" TLDs ... but I
doubt there is room enough for all the ccTLDs...

Coordinatedly yours.

Jefsey

P.S. Did you explain Stuart, Louis and Joe about Bind 9 "views"?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:52:51 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Vint Cerf

On 02:11 11/07/01, [email-masked] said:
>Milton,
>I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative root
>is part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's
>responsibility in the creation of new TLDs.
>If the DNSO believes a different policy is needed, it is free to develop
>proposals for the ICANN board to consider.
>Vint Cerf
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00605.html

Dear Vint,
do you really believe you need the DNSO to know if triangles
have changed shape?

Until recently, the submits, i.e. the roots of hierarchical trees,
were tiny little sharp dots like the one you don't even see at
the righter end of a DN.

Obvsiouly if Joe Sims says we know otherwise for many years
may be there is room in there for a few "gobal" TLDs ... but I
doubt there is room enough for all the ccTLDs...

Coordinatedly yours.

Jefsey

P.S. Did you explain Stuart, Louis and Joe about Bind 9 "views"?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:53:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Reminder: TLDA Nominations under way

Jeff,
as far as I understand the TLDA is a TLD industy association. Their public 
list should be open to all the TLD Managers. I suppose that as soon as you 
have set-up your own TLD operations you may join their list. Jefsey

On 10:23 11/07/01, Jeff Williams said:
>John and all assembly members,
>
>   When will the archives or your public ML ba avlaible to the public?
>
>John Palmer wrote:
>
> > Just a reminder that nominations are under way for TLDA board and committee
> > seats.
> >
> > Members can nominate and can also run for the seats on the board and
> > committees (see http://www.tlda.org).
> >
> > Nominations run through July 13, 2001 at 23:59:59 UTC.
> >
> > Elections will be July 27 12:00 UTC - July 29 12:00 UTC.
> >
> > To see if you qualify as a member of the TLDA or to apply for
> > membership vist http://www.tlda.org
> >
> > John Palmer
> > Secretary
> > TLDA
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:12:25 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comments from Louis Touton 

         My own comments are at 
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=241&mode=&order=0>.

Jon

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:14:32 EDT, Danny Younger wrote (quoting Louis Touton):
>To the Names Council:
>
>        In an effort to clarify matters:
>
>           1.  The policies that ICANN follows are not limited to those 
> adopted
>        by the ICANN Board since ICANN was created.  They also include the
>        policies previously in place, subject of course to revision 
> through the
>        community-based ICANN processes.
>
>           2.  At its 2 June 2001 meeting, the Names Council passed the
>        following resolution:  "The Names Council considers that multiple 
> roots
>        are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO."  Milton Mueller voted 
> for that
>        resolution.
>
>           3.  Two days later, at its 4 June 2001 meeting, the ICANN Board of
>        Directors discussed the 28 May discussion draft of "A Unique,
>        Authoritative Root for the DNS."  The full minutes are not yet
>        completed, but a recording of the proceedings is available though
> 
><http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/agenda-bod-060401.html>,
>        as are the scribe's notes.  As the scribe reports, the Board reached
>        consensus that the discussion draft should be revised based on 
> comments
>        and posted in final.
>
>           4.  Individual directors of ICANN have an important role, when 
> acting
>        in conjunction with the other Board members, in adoption of new and
>        changed ICANN policies.  Individual directors do not speak on 
> behalf of
>        ICANN, however, except where they have been authorized to do so under
>        the authority of the Board.  The Board has elected Stuart Lynn as
>        ICANN's President and Chief Executive Officer, "in charge of all 
> of its
>        activities and business," and as such he is authorized to speak for
>        ICANN.  As Dr. Lynn stated in presenting the finalized document:
>
>           "Based on those comments, I have finalized the document. This final
>            version has been posted as the third member (ICP-3) of the 
> Internet
>            Coordination Policy series.
>
>           "Many members of the community informed me that they felt the
>            document is fundamentally correct and applauded it as a 
> faithful and
>            well-documented statement of the long-standing policies underlying
>            the principle of a single, authoritative root capable of 
> preserving
>            a robust, unique naming system for Internet users worldwide. Many
>            also provided me with constructive suggestions for improvement.
>            Helpful suggestions also came from some of those who were critical
>            of the document.
>
>           "Some of the latter raised the objection that the document is
>            creating new policy without going through proper process. As the
>            discussion draft pointed out, however, it did not create new 
> policy,
>            but was carefully limited to articulating existing policy. The
>            creation of new policies implicates ICANN's community-based
>            consensus-development processes, but until those processes achieve
>            new policies the pre-existing policies (whether developed through
>            previous ICANN processes or received by ICANN at its creation)
>            should be evenhandedly followed.
>
>           "In evaluating the document, the essential focus should be on what
>            policies ICANN has developed or received, rather than what 
> policies
>            one wishes were in place. This essential enquiry depends 
> heavily on
>            documentation of past statements and actions; for this reason the
>            discussion draft undertook a careful review of these and, in the
>            final version, I have added some additional citations that were
>            suggested in the ensuing discussion. Although some of the 
> critical
>            comments had very thoughtful statements about what policy 
> should be,
>            they lacked specific documentation that the established policy
>            differs from that stated in the discussion draft."
>
>        Best regards,
>
>        Louis Touton
>        ICANN Vice-President and General Counsel
>        http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00608.html
>        --
>        This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>        Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>        ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>        Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #607
************************